DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 323 673 EA 022 281

AUTHOR Garber, Darrell H.

TITLE Vital Topics in School Finance.

PUB DATE Mar 90

NOTE 22p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Education Finance Association (Las Vegas,NV, March 1990).

PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Accounting; Administrator Attitudes; *Budgeting;Educational Administration; *Educational Finance;Elementary Secondary Education; *Money Management;Planning; *Principals; Resource Allocation; SchoolAdministration; Teacher Administrator Relationship

IDENTIFIERS *Louisiana

ABSTRACTA study to determine the topics considered vital by

principals and members of the American Education Finance Association(AEFA) is described in this paper. Questionnaires mailed to tworandom samples of 61 AEFA members and 181 elementary/secondaryprincipals respectively, yielded 35 returns, a 57 percent responserate, and 113 returns, a 62 percent response rate. Responses wereused to generate a list of 13 topics in educational finance thatprincipals and AEFA members believed to be vital to the schoolprogram. Both sets of respondents perceived school budgetadministration as the most important topic for educationaladministration. A significant difference of opinion, however, existedbetween the two groups in three areas: legal issues, accountingprinciples, and resource allocation ethics. Despite a commonperception of a split between teachers and practitioners ofeducational administration, no major difference of opinion in thearea of educational finance was found. Five tables and two figuresare included. (15 references) (LMI)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

Vital Topics in School Finance

Darrell H. Garber

Assistant Professor

Louisiana Tech University

P. 0. Box 3161--T.S.

Ruston, Louisiana 71272

(318)257-2929

A Presentation to:

American Education Finance Association

1990 Conference

Las Vegas, Nevada

March 17, 1990

U DEPARTMENT OP EDUCADONOnce of Educational Raessich and Improvement

EOUCADONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERfC)

V< document nos bean reproduCad asrecanted from the Demi. Or Orelnaihenoriginating it

0 Minor changes nave bean made to improvereproduction Qualify

Points ofylew or Opinionsatatdin thisdocomint do nOl necessarily moment officialOERI position or policy

2

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Vital 7opics 2

Vital Topics in School Finance

Problem Statement

This study determined the topics from the field of school finance which

are vital both to principals and members of the American Education Finance

Association (AEFA).

Definition of Variables

Field of School Finance: Body of literature published during the 1980s in the

area of public school finance.

Vital knowledge: Knowledge about topics in school finance which AEFA members

and principals judged to be vital. (A decision rule based on means was

used to determine vital topics. When there was a significant difference

in the opinion of those who teach School Finance and those who do not

teach such a course (e.g., practitioners), these differences were

reported.

Sample, Design and Methodology Used

Sample:

Population 1: Members of the American Education Finance Association (AEFA) as

of 1988 comprised the population.

Random Sampling:

1. All members on the 1988 AEP.A roster were assigned a number from 000 to

489.

2. An arbitrary number was selected from the table of random numbers.

3

3

3. When a number from tide rancwm number table corresponded Ao any of the

individuals in the population, then that individual was placed in the

sample.

4. Step three was repeated until 61 individuals (12.5% of the total

population were selected.)

5. Eventually, 35 responses were receivd for a respons rate of 57% from

AEFA mmbers.

Sample 2

Population 2: Principals

Stratified Sampling:

1. Principals of all Louisiana public schoo/s were identified within each

of the eight existing Governor's Planning Districts.

2. All schools were placed into a category representing the configuration

of the school: elementary, secondary and combination.

3. Within each category, schools wer randomly selected with the total

number selected being proportional to the total of number of schools in

the category and planning district.

4. A sample of 181 schools was obtained using the above method. Ninety

three of thess were lementary schools; 40 wer high schools. Forty

eight wer schools which combine levels (e.g., k-12 schools and other

grade configurations).

5. The rspons rata from this group was 62% or 113 replies.

Methodology

Descriptive rsearch methodology was used to collect data for survey

construction. The survey instrument was created through the following steps.

4

4

1. Review of the topics most often included in books on school finance

during the 1980g. (See Bibliography.)

2. Use of frequency analysis to identify 30 topics.

3. A modified Likert scale asked individuals to respond to a series of

statements by indicating whether the respondent believed: (1) the topic

to be vital, (2) important bUt not vital or (3) not important to a

school level administrator.

Null Hypotheses

1. There is no significant difference between the mean responses of AEFA

members and practicing principals.

2. There is no significant difference between the mean responses of those

who have 1 to 4, 5 to 14 9 to 16, 17 to 20 or over 21 years of

experience in educational administration.

3. There is no significant difference between the seam responses of those

who regularly teach classes or conduct inservice sessions on school

finance.

Statistical Treatment

1. ANOVA was used to determine whether there was a significant difference

between means in order to test each null hypothesis (L.R. Say, 1997;

Freund, Littell I Spector, 1996).

2. Duncan Multiple Range Test was used to conduct multiple comparison of

the 30 topics. Duncan's method was 'used in order to lessen the

probability of Type I error (Freund, Littell & Spector, 1986).

5

5

3. Calculation of the response mean for each topic was used to determine

which topics were considered vital to those who teach School Finance and

practicing school administrators.

Major Findings and Implications

Introduction

It is not unusual to hear that those who teach school finance courses

and those who practice school finance in principals' offices are miles apart.

There are those who say that the courses in school finance are too

"theoretical"; that prine-ipals want topics in school finance to be

"practical."

With this apparent dilemma in mind, texts in school finance listed in

Books in Print with copyright dates from 1980 to 1989 were examined. A

listing of topics from those texts was compiled. By using frequency analysis, .

the topics from the selected texts was narrowed to a list of 30. These 30

topics became the subject of a survey conducted during the Winter, 1989-90.

The same survey was sent to a random sample of members of American Education

Finance Assrciation (AEFA) and a stratified random sample of Louisiana

principals. The findings were based on a response rate of 62% from principals

and 57% from AEFA members.

Findinos

There were nt significant differences between responses of AEFA members

and principals on 20 of the 30 items (see Table 1). Principals rated 8 of the

10 topics in contention of-more importance, relatively. These eight were:

--financing school facilities

--incentives

6

6

-school efficiency

--equity in financing schools

--legal issues in school finance

- -accounting principles

- -use of microcomputers in budgeting

- -federal aid

The two topics rated higher, relatively, by AEFA members were:

- -ethics

--collective bargaining

When the data were analyzed to compare the respunse rate of those who

teach school finance classes to those of principals, much of the above

findings remained ',he same (see Table 2). AEFA members are not all professors

of finance. When those who do not teach such a course were dropped from the

analysis, no significant difference occurred in the respondents opinion on

incentives and school efficiency. However, vouchers emerged as a topic of

significant disagreement. Principals rate vouchers higher as an -ea of

concern than did professors of school finance.

Furthermore, the data were analyzed to determine whether there were

differences in the perceptions of those who had various amounts of experience

in school finance (see Table 3). Only 4 of the 30 topics were significantly

different when experience was the comparison factor. Those four were:

--budget components

--collective bargaining

--accounting principles

- -federal aid

7

7

Not surprisingly, those who had 1 to 4 years experience considered

budget components to be of a more vital nature than did those who had 17 to 20

years of experience, interestingly enough, there was no significant

difference between those just starting in administration and those who had

more than 21 years experiencs.

In a like fashion there was a difference in opinion between those with 4

or less and 9 to 16 years of experience on the topic of collective bargaining.

Those with four or less years experience regarded the topic as relatively more

vital than did any other group. Again, there was no difference in response of

those new in the field and the veterans (more than 21 years experience).

Also, administrators with less experience regarded the issue of federal aid to

be of more value than did any other group.

Finally, those in the middle years of experience, 9 to 20, disagreed

with the veterans (more than 21 years) on the importance of accounting

principles, weighing the topic as more valuable. Generally, respondents at

all levels of experience, except the most senior, regarded knowledge about

accounting principles as vital for the principal to understand.

Imolications

From the responses, we can generate a list of the topics principals and_

AEFA members believe to be vital to the school principal. By invoking a

decision rule (mean 11.5), a list of 13 topics emerged from the 30 originally

supposed to he vital (see Table 4). Both sets of respondents agreed that

administering school budgets is the most important of the topics discussed in

school finance books in the past decade.

Significant difference of opinion was found in three areas.

--legal issues in school finance

8

-accounting principles

- -ethics in resource allocation

However, the relative ranking given by both populations was similar (see

Figure 1), No significant differences were found in the opinions on a large

majority of the topics.

In conclusion, in spite of any common myth about the split between those

who teach clucational administration and those who practice it, there seems to

be no major difference of opinion in the area of school finance. Principals,

AEFA members and School Finance professors share similar beliefs about topics

which are vital and those of limited importance in the practice of school

administration. Professors developing course syllabi and textbooks can use a

research base for determining which topics are of most importance in the

opinion of both informed experts and practicing principals.

9

Table 1

Mean Responses from Principals and Members of AEFA

s MultipleTopic F 1,146 P Mean Mean Duncan

Principal AEFA Range Test

Economics <1 ns 1.9 2.0 none

Taxation <1 ns 2.0 1.9 none

History <1 ns 2.0 2.5 none

Nonpublic Schls 1.43 ns 2.3 2.5 none

Facilities 9.33 .01 1.4 1.8 I vs. II

School Budgets <1 ns 1.1 1.1 ^1142nse

Property Man'ment <1 ns 1.5 . 1.5 none

Personnel Admin. <1 ns 1.3 1.3 none

Vouchers <2 ns 2.1 2.2 none

Incentives 4.29 .05 1.8 2.0 I vs. II

Efficiency 4.25 .05 1.2 1.4 I vs. II

Ethics 10.46 .001 1.9 1.5 I vs. II

Politics <2 ns 2.2 2.0 none

Allocations <1 ns 1.5 1.5 none

Budget Components <2 ns 1.5 1.6 none

Planning <2 ns 1.4 1.3 none

Equity 9.28 .001 1.6 2.0 I vs. II

Budget Cuts <1 ns 1.6 1.6 none

Bargaining 9.21 .05 2.1 1.7 I vs. II

Energy Conserving 2.0 ns 1.6 1.7 none

Risk Management <3 ns 1.8 2.0 none

1 e

10

Campaigns 0 ns 2.0 2.0 none

Lobbying <1 ns 2.1 2.2 none

Sp.Ed. Funding 0 ns 2.1 2.1 none

Effective Schools <1 ns 1.3 1.4 nonv

Technology 1 ns 1.5 1.3 none

Legalities 20.7 .0001 1.5 2.0 I vs. II

Accounting 23.9 .0001 1-5 2.1 I vs. II

Computers 4.24 .04 1.8 2.1 I vs. II

Fed. Aid 34.14 .0001 1.7 2.4 I vs. II

Note: ns = no significant difference

ii

.

11

Table 2

ttmallejipsEumaly_lhpse Who Teach School Finance Courses and Those Who Do Not

opic an an

Principal Professor Range Test

rcTio5117C-71-711-1-77-171, no ne

Taxatinn <1 ns 2.0 2.0 nnna

History <1 ns 2.4 2.4 none

Nonpublic Schls <1 ns 2.3 2.4 none

Facilities 7.91 .005 1.4...

1.8 I vs. II

School Budgets <1 ns 1.1 1.1 none

PrJperty Man'ment <1 ns 1.5 1.5 none

Personnel Admin. <1 ns 1.3 1.3 none

Vouchers 5.64 .05 2.0 2.4 I vs. II

Incentives 2.41 ns 1.8 2.0 no ne

Efficiency 3.79 .10 1.2 1.4 none

Ethics 8.63 .05 1.9 1.5 I vs. II

Politics <2 ns 2.1 2.0 none

Allocations 1.0 ns 1.5 1.4 none

Budget Componont5 2.39 ns 1.4 1.6 none

Planning <1 ns 1.4 1.3 none

Equity 5.42 .05 1.6 1.9 I vs. II

Budget Cuts <1 .ns 1.6 1.6 none

Bargaining 7.76 .05 2.1 1.7 I vs. II

Energy Conserving <1 ns 1.6 1.7 no ne

Risk Management 1.0 ns 1.8 2.0 none

Campaigns <1 ns 2.0 1.9 none

Lobbying <2 ns 2.1 2.2 none

Sp.Ed. Funding <1 ns 2.1 2.0 none

Effective Schools <1 ns 1.3 1.4 none

Technology <1 ns 1.5 1.4 none

Legalities 13.49 .001 1.5 2.0 I vs. II

Accounting 12.87 .001 1.5 2.1 I vs. II

Computers <2 ns 1.8 2.0 none

Fed. Aid 16.22 .0001 1.8 2.3 I vs. II

Note: ns = no significant difference

13

Table 3

Mean Resoonses by Years of Exoerkence in Administration

opic Iro ans y

I II

ears

III IV V

ncan s

Range Test

conomics none

Taxation <1 ns 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.8 2.0 none

History 3.06 ns 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.2 none

Nonpublic Schls <1 ns 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2 none

Facilities <1 ns 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.6 none

School Budgets <1 ns 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 none

Property Man'ment <2 ns 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 none

Personnel Admin. <1 ns 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 none

Vouchers <1 ns 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.1 none

Incentives <1 ns 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 none

Efficiency <1 ns 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 none

Ethics <2 ns 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.7 none

Politics <1 ns 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 none

Allocations <1 ns i.4 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 none

Budget Components <2 ns 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.5 I vs. IV

Planning <1 ns 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 none

Equity <1 ns 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.6 none

Budget Cuts <1 ns 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 none

Bargaining '2.41 .05 1.7 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.9 I vs. III

Energy Conserving <1 ns 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.5 none

Risk Management <1 ns 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 none

14

13

Funding Campaigns a ns 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.3

Lobbying <1 ns 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.0

Sp.Ed. Funding <2 ns 2.0 1.9 2.2 1.9

Effective Schools <1 ns 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4

Technology <1 ns 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4

Legalities 0.80 ns 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6

Accounting 1.88 ns 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.3

Computers . 0.63 ns 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9

Fed. Aid 2.68 .05 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.1

Notes:

ns = no significant difference

1 to 4 years of experience

II a 5 to 8

III = 9 to 16

IV' 2 17 to 20

V 2! or above

2.0 none

2.0 none

2.1 none

1.2 none

.1.4 none

1.7 none

2.0 III vs. V

2.0 none

2.1 I vs. IV & V

14

15

Table 4

Vital T

Topic Principari

Mean Rank

ArFA -Members

Mean Rank

Administering School Budgets 1.1 1 1.1 1

School Efficiency* 1.2 2 1.4 3

Effective School Characteristics 1.3 3 1.4 3

Personnel Administration 1.3 3 1.3 2

Financing Facilities* 1.4 4 1.8 6

Financial Flanning/Cost Control 1.4 4 1.3 2

Property Management 1.5 5 1.5 4

Internal Resource Allocation 1.5 5 1.5 4

Budget Components 1.5 5 1.6 5

Technology Use in Schl Improvement 1.5 5 1.3 2

Legal issues in School Finance* 1.5 3 2.0 8

Accounting Principles* 1.5 5 2.1 7

Ethics in Resource Allocation* 1.9 6 1.5 4

Notes:

Decision Rule: For a topic to be designated "vital" required a mean of 11.5

from either principals or AEFA meabers.

Topics with the same rankirg share the same relative value.

*Significantly different means

is

Table 3

Tooics_of limited Imoortancl

T ir Moan:

16

History of SchoOl Finance

Principals AEFA Members

Funding for Nonpublic Schools

Notes:

2.0 2.5

2.3 2.5

Decision Rule: For a topic to be designated "Of Limited Importance" required

a mean of k2.5 from e.ther principals or AEFA members.

1 7

Mot

Figure -1: Vital Topicsin School Finance

0 SCIPIP011$1t£IfTOpies

111 Prim**. MI AMA llwwlare

I a. NMI; S aN Of Ifiesilei imparilawas

Legend:

A = Administering School BudgetsB School EfficiencyC = Effective School CharacteristicsD = Personnel AdministrationE = Financing FacilitiesF Financial Planning\Cost Control6 = Property ManagementH = Internal Resource AllocationI = Budget Components

= Use of Technology in School ImprovementsK = Legal Issues in School Fini.nce

L = Accounting PrinciplesM = Ethics in Resource Allocation

1 8

Figure 2: Topicsof Limited Importance

1161wg

Topics

al Primoipais El WA Ihrn lors

I as Mak I I as Of OMNI imparirear

9

19

Refrences

Freund, R.J., Littell, R.C., and Spector, P.C. SAS %%tem for Linear Models.

Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1986.

Gay, L.R. gdgcational Research: Comoetencies for Analysis and Aoolication.

f3rd Ed0. Columbus: Merrill, 1987.

20

20

Bibliography

Candoli, I.C., Hask, W.G.p Ray, R.J., and Stollar, D.H. School Business

Administration: A Plannina Approach. (3rd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and

Bacon, 1984.

Genck, F.H. umnsiaillina3osu_souLAgaisminuada. How-To -Do -It -

Yourself Handbooks and Case Studies. (Vol. 1). Chicago: Institute for

Public Management, 1984.

Goldstein, W. Sellina School Budaets in Hard Times. B1o2mington: Phi DeltaTh

Kappa, 1984.

Guthrie, J.W. School Finance Policies and Practices._ The 1980s: A Decade of

Conflict. 1st Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance

Association. Cambridge: Ballinger, 1980.

Hartman, W.T. School District Budoetini. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall,

1988.

Hymes, D.L. School Budoetina: Problems and Solutions. Sacramento:

Education News Service, 1982.

Johns, R.L., Morphet, E.L. and Alexander, K. The Economics and Financina of

Education. (4th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1963.

Jones, T.H. Introduction to School Finance Techniaue and Social Policy. New

York: Macmillan, 1985.

Monk, D.H. and Underwood, J. Micralevel School Finance Issuas and

Implications for Policy. 9th Annual Yearbook of the American Education

Finance Association. Cambridge: Ballinger, 1988.

21

21

Odden, A. and Webb, L.D. k_g_L#Kca_dklggLjgwnt:L'IeforhoFinnl

the 1980s. 4th Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance

Association. Cambridge; Ballinger, 1983.

Webb, L.D., McCarthy, M.M. and Thomas, S.D. Financing ElementIrv

Wandarv Education. Columbus: Merrill, 1988.

Williams, M.F. The Public School and Finances: A Guide to the Istues in

Financina Public Education in the United States. Neu York: Pilgrim

Press, 1980.

e

P2